As I understand it, you don't have to actually go with a guy to have a baby. I think I am goin' for it!

Mother here ... I was like, do I post post this, or is it better not to post it at all ... but then, I thought, I'm gonna post it anyway ... I am aware that talking about two men having a baby sounds crazy and that several posters on this board may ridicule the idea ... now, I don't know if I'm being naive, but science has made possible for us things that 50 years ago we'd think were impossible ... my question is - is this something that scientists are working on and that they are bound to bring to fruition? I have a son who's gay, who very much loves his partner - I know deep down myself he loves children, it's just that he does not go with women. I sometimes 'rave' he might have a biological child with his partner, his boyfriend ... now I wonder, is this just a poor woman's imagination, or something that will come true sooner or later?

Meria, in all due respect, I'm trying to think what is it that you're really thinking?! You say, "it's 'just' that he does not go with women" - I mean, what's that supposed to mean - for this kind of thing, going with women really matters!

Just take a look at the date the electronic article was posted on BBC - more than 10 years ago - doesn't that make you think they're not making their "best efforts" on that?!

spillover - as the other poster advised you, I think you should be more careful and try to maintain the boundaries a lil' bit better - you can't go ahead and try to put people down just like that!

Exactly, 2 young 2, spillover can't even pretend s/he was being friendly to Meria when putting it bluntly and telling her about the whole thing as it is -

I mean, we're not living in some kind of ex-communist country where people called themselves "brothers" and "sisters," pretending that they really were such to a certain extent!

In the Western world, people draw strict boundaries between one another - in fact, they are expected to fully rely on themselves psychologically and economically for their own maintenance (be self-sufficient) - with solidarity and like concepts not being too much attended to. Things function in these societies bureaucratically, based on the laws, drawn and enforced by the governments, the ones that same people elected to govern them.

So they do not, for instance, go and kill their fellow citizen to get even for him having say, raped, their child - they address the issue with the government - take the guy to the courts of law.

The government, on the other hand, has to abide by a set of norms (laws) and not overstep them, abusing the power conferred on it by the people. It can not curtail their citizens' liberties, for instance, overtly or covertly, unless good cause is shown first.

It can not resort to illegal tactics and strategies that by actually being used and reluctantly endorsed by its citizens have the effect of legitimizing them, with the end result being overaccumulation of power, beyond that that was originally intended to be invested, and conferred, by the people onto their government.

And so, the more innocent their victim of persecution, the more afraid people will be - as they too might as well be in the victim's place - with more and more power that governments will be able to steal from the people.

It can not resort to illegal tactics and strategies that by actually being used and reluctantly endorsed by its citizens have the effect of legitimizing them, with the end result being over-accumulation of power, beyond that that was originally intended to be invested, and conferred, by the people onto their government.

And so, the more innocent their victim of persecution, the more afraid people will be - as they too might as well be in the victim's place - with more and more power that governments will be able to steal from the people.

Will you walk me to my car, I don't think you have to worry too much about this - do you think The People would allow such a thing? At least in the US of A? I mean, sure, things have happened, but not to the extent that would make one so intent on stressing it out.

Could first figure out, though, as to how you got to this stuff, as you were initially commenting on "spillover"s response to another poster ... anyway ...

In regard to this thread's topic, I'd make these comments: While legal profession, traditionally has been elite-exclusion and lawyers as known to be "bottom feeders" because of their being relatively unproductive, charging exorbitant rates, and leaching off of the poor, it is also a fact that it is relatively easy to become an attorney in US With a ridiculously high bar passage rate, its not too elite-exclusive. In other countries the lawyers ARE elites. In US their prestige is relatively weak.

This is true of doctors too. Doctors are elites. They leach off the poor. So are CEOs and other high paying jobs. Look, the imperative that doctors and lawyers (the two professions that people think are special and that they are bound by extra moral duties) need to realize that there job is NOT that special. It's just a job. These jobs have a board and a strict rule of conduct but... they don't have a special moral duty that are unique to them. Just get your money, man!

Holy smokes - I don't know what are you people doing here - "that guest" comments on "Will you walk 2 my car"s post and makes a left turn reminding "Will you walk" about "spillover" that s/he was referring to - on the other hand, "spillover" has rammed a post in a totally inappropriate thread -

It can not resort to illegal tactics and strategies that by actually being used and reluctantly endorsed by its citizens have the effect of legitimizing them, with the end result being over-accumulation of power, beyond that that was originally intended to be invested, and conferred, by the people onto their government.

And so, the more innocent their victim of persecution, the more afraid people will be - as they too might as well be in the victim's place - with more and more power that governments will be able to steal from the people.

Will you walk me to my car, I don't think you have to worry too much about this - do you think The People would allow such a thing? At least in the US of A? I mean, sure, things have happened, but not to the extent that would make one so intent on stressing it out.

Could first figure out, though, as to how you got to this stuff, as you were initially commenting on "spillover"s response to another poster ... anyway ...

that guest, what do you really mean when you ask as to whether The People would allow such a thing? You are using the term "The People" in the sense of "We The People," are you not?!

'Cause in that case, I think it'd more correct to say, "do you think The B i t c h e s would not allow such a thing?" - again using "The B i t c h e s" in the sense of "We The B i t c h e s."

I mean, are you nuts, have you not heard about all the * & ^ % the American government has done on its own people, let alone what it does to the entire world on a daily basis - raping the entire globe of its resources, stealing the oil of the Middle East and waging wars there to scare the * & ^ % outta them!

Holy smokes - I don't know what are you people doing here - "that guest" comments on "Will you walk 2 my car"s post and makes a left turn reminding "Will you walk" about "spillover" that s/he was referring to - on the other hand, "spillover" has rammed a post in a totally inappropriate thread -

What the @ # ! * is this all about?! Anyone?!

two feasts - sometimes it does look that way, like the posts are/you'd think them to relate to one another, but the fact is that most of the time they're made randomly - I wouldn't expect them being "coherent," so to speak, or too much adhering to the thread's topic, for that matter.

Exactly, 2 young 2, spillover can't even pretend s/he was being friendly to Meria when putting it bluntly and telling her about the whole thing as it is - I mean, we're not living in some kind of ex-communist country where people called themselves "brothers" and "sisters," pretending that they really were such to a certain extent!

In the Western world, people draw strict boundaries between one another - in fact, they are expected to fully rely on themselves psychologically and economically for their own maintenance (be self-sufficient) - with solidarity and like concepts not being too much attended to.

Things function in these societies bureaucratically, based on the laws, drawn and enforced by the governments, the ones that same people elected to govern them.

So they do not, for instance, go and kill their fellow citizen to get even for him having say, raped, their child - they address the issue with the government - take the guy to the courts of law.

The government, on the other hand, has to abide by a set of norms (laws) and not overstep them, abusing the power conferred on it by the people. It can not curtail their citizens' liberties, for instance, overtly or covertly, unless good cause is shown first.

It can not resort to illegal tactics and strategies that by actually being used and reluctantly endorsed by its citizens have the effect of legitimizing them, with the end result being over-accumulation of power, beyond that that was originally intended to be invested, and conferred, by the people onto their government.

And so, the more innocent their victim of persecution, the more afraid people will be - as they too might as well be in the victim's place - with more and more power that governments will be able to steal from the people.

Will you walk me 2 my car, I can see your post has elicited a bit of controversy - I'd have to say that there are safeguards in place that would not allow a certain branch of the government go off the limits and employ "illegal" tactics, as you say, on its citizens - the executive body, would need, for instance, a warrant from a judge (the legislative), which would make the tactic that you talk about, "legal."

The Investment of Power by the People into its own Government, as outlined in the Constitution, works in such a way that there exists a separation of powers between the 3 branches of the government (thus, operating on a system of checks and balances).

James Madison, writing in "The Federalist," No. 47, said, that the accumulation of all powers - legislative, executive, and judiciary - in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, lead to the very definition of tyranny [dictatorship].

The Investment of Power by the People into its own Government, as outlined in the Constitution, works in such a way that there exists a separation of powers between the 3 branches of the government (thus, operating on a system of checks and balances).

Strange, we had a professor who told us the 4th branch of government is the media. The idea was that the media/press as a fourth branch stems from a belief that the news media's responsibility to inform the populace is essential to the healthy functioning of the democracy.

And yet, the phrase "Fourth Estate" should be used to emphasize the independence of the press, particularly when this is contrasted with the press as a "fourth branch." I mean, if we read in the newspapers what the government wants to be written, who's gonna expose corruption and all the other stuff in which public officials are regularly involved?

Interesting avatar as well! The question that has baffled scientists, academics and pub bores through the ages: What came first, the chicken or the egg?

It points out the futility of identifying the first case of a circular cause and consequence. The predestination paradox (also called either a causal loop or a causality loop) is a paradox of time travel that is often used as a convention in science fiction. It exists when a time traveller is caught in a loop of events that "predestines" him/her to travel back in time. Because of the possibility of influencing the past while time travelling, one way of explaining why history does not change is by saying that whatever has happened was meant to happen. A time traveller attempting to alter the past in this model, intentionally or not, would only be fulfilling his role in creating history as we know it, not changing it. The predestination paradox is in some ways the opposite of the grandfather paradox, the famous example of the traveller killing his own grandfather before his parent is conceived, thereby precluding his own travel to the past by canceling his own existence.

A dual example of a predestination paradox is depicted in the classic Ancient Greek play 'Oedipus'. Laius hears a prophecy that his son will kill him. Fearing the prophecy, Laius pierces Oedipus' feet and leaves him out to die, but a herdsman finds him and takes him away from Thebes. Oedipus, not knowing he was adopted, leaves home in fear of the same prophecy that he would kill his father and marry his mother. Laius, meanwhile, ventures out to find a solution to the Sphinx's riddle. As prophesied, Oedipus crossed paths with Laius and this leads to a fight where Oedipus slays Laius. Oedipus then defeats the Sphinx by solving a mysterious riddle to become king. He marries the widow queen Jocasta not knowing she is his mother.

A typical example of a predestination paradox (used in The Twilight Zone episode "No Time Like the Past") is as follows: A man travels back in time to discover the cause of a famous fire. While in the building where the fire started, he accidentally knocks over a kerosene lantern and causes a fire, the same fire that would inspire him, years later, to travel back in time.

A variation on the predestination paradoxes which involves information, rather than objects, traveling through time is similar to the self-fulfilling prophecy: A man receives information about his own future, telling him that he will die from a heart attack. He resolves to get fit so as to avoid that fate, but in doing so overexerts himself, causing him to suffer the heart attack that kills him. In both examples, causality is turned on its head, as the flanking events are both causes and effects of each other, and this is where the paradox lies. In the second example, the person would not have traveled back in time but for the fire that he or she caused by traveling back in time. Similarly, in the third example, the man would not have overexerted himself but for the future information he receives. In most examples of the predestination paradox, the person travels back in time and ends up fulfilling their role in an event that has already occurred. In a self-fulfilling prophecy, the person is fulfilling their role in an event that has yet to occur, and it is usually information that travels in time (for example, in the form of a prophecy) rather than a person. In either situation, the attempts to avert the course of past or future history both fail.

ismile, you're really making us smile, what does explaining this has to do with the thread's original topic?